Judge Chutkan rejects Trump’s demands and reminds him who is in charge (for now).

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan sided with special counsel Jack Smith on Tuesday when she said he could file a longer than usual brief in the upcoming immunity trial. But the judge not only granted the government’s arguably administrative request, but also dismissed a handful of complaints that Donald Trump’s lawyers had made in connection with the request.

In granting Smith’s request for more pages – he said his first immunity letter could be 180 pages – Chutkan noted in their written statement that the former president’s opposition to Smith’s request “included a single statement that the administration’s request” would quadruple the standard page limits.” This district.'” The rest of Trump’s nine-page dissent, she wrote, “reaffirms the defendant’s position that the immunity discussion should not begin until he files a motion to dismiss in several months.”

In her statement, Chutkan reiterated her rejection of Trump’s position. She noted that the fact that prosecutors are filing their opening brief – which, thanks to their decision, can now be longer than the usual 45 pages – reflects the “unusual procedural situation of the case, in which…” [trial] Court was directed [by the Supreme Court] “To accept party submissions and make concrete decisions about the nature of the allegations.” Another way to read her statement is the judge’s statement: It’s not my fault the Supreme Court made this crazy immunity ruling; I’m just trying to figure out the best way to move forward.

The Obama appointee also brushed aside Trump’s claims that Smith’s upcoming letter arguing against immunity would represent something incredibly unusual or even unpleasant – “that’s just how litigation works,” she wrote – or that the upcoming election would be one relevant consideration. On the latter point, Chutkan wrote that the Republican presidential candidate’s “concern about the political consequences of this proceeding has no bearing on the pretrial schedule.”

Elsewhere in her opinion, the judge criticized the “incoherence” of Trump’s trial position and criticized the defense’s lack of support for its stance. (The former president has pleaded not guilty in the federal case, alleging he tried to criminally undermine the 2020 election, which he lost to Joe Biden.)

While this brief motion is not the most consequential in the federal election interference case, Chutkan’s statement represents the latest assertion of her authority in the matter. At the same time, it is a reminder that her control is subject to both higher judicial scrutiny and outright disappearance threatens. The Supreme Court will still have the final say on however it resolves the heart of the immunity question – that resolution won’t come before the election, and it will likely lose control of the case forever if Trump wins this election and him can be rejected.

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for updates and expert analysis on the most important legal topics. The newsletter will return to its regular weekly schedule when the next Supreme Court term begins in October.